Theme 5 Post 1

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

Empirical data means it’s basically data learnt through experience. Both of these papers use empirical data in order to explain the research topic and what perspective will be taken in the article. In the article by Lundström a few different types of data are used. There was an analysis of discussions on online forums regarding the topic. They conducted interviews with experts, early adopters and people with sufficient experience of driving electric cars. Also a  state-of-the-art analysis was done. This gathered data could then serve as a basis for formulating a problem definition and a starting point of what to focus on during the research. It also used results from earlier studies especially for backing up design decisions. It was mentioned in this paper that they had used empirical data from Nissan and that it was used as a part of the equation for estimating the energy consumption by the car. The other paper by Ferneaus and Tholander also used earlier studies as data for supporting their design decisions and their way of conducting the study.

The aforementioned data was used as input to the studies but the studies also output data in the form of results. The results were mainly new design principles and approaches suitable for the tasks described in each study. As mentioned before these were a combination of prototypical work and design theories.

- Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

Returning to last week where we discussed different theory types. The last category would fit these articles. Since theories are in a way knowledge, I would say that practical design work should be considered a contributor to knowledge. Also following the papers it is clear that a lot of knowledge is gained indirectly. Serendipity is a word I find suitable in this context. When working towards something you might end up finding something else which is very valuable or even more valuable than the initial goal.

- Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

Obviously design is dependent on the usage and application of the product. Research projects have different purposes than commercial products. Generally in research, focus is more on functionality than on a well polished product. Shortcuts on the design are more accepted if it allows for the study to be performed as intended. For design driven approaches the intention is more on wanting to discover something new. In other research practices it’s common wanting to confirm a hypothesis or something similar. The initial design is therefore not critical in design driven research since it can easily be changed along the way.

- Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

A big problem with replication is that the technology is constantly changing. The tools we used 10 years ago might not be the same as today. In some cases this can turn a research field completely irrelevant if the technology has been replaced by something else. On the other hand, the methods used in earlier research can still be relevant. The design of the research might be reusable. One must also consider the setting in which the research took place. In a new setting some technologies could be used in other ways or with new purposes compared to previously. Perhaps this can sometimes be accounted for by analysing the historical setting but only to some extent. Studying old studies can be relevant in the same way as studying history in general is relevant for learning what to do and what not to do in the future.

Even though technology and settings change, the scientific method is still relevant. It’s a cornerstone for conducting studies.

- Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

Generally in design driven research the theoretical basis is more limited. In other research practices long theories are being built by analysing a lot of earlier studies. The decisions made in the studies are most often backed up by this. The design choices made in design driven research doesn’t necessarily have to be argued for, but are very much up to the designer. This gives the designer a lot of freedom to under the course of the study continously make refinements to the design.

In other research practices, the design has to be very well defined from the onset. Meanwhile for design driven approaches, the process is a big part of the research.

What are the implications of this? Are design driven approaches looked down on in academia? I would say that these sorts of studies can be good but they do run the risk of not being very useful. They have relatively specific solutions and it might be hard to generalize these and reuse them for future research.